All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

450,000 won from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant issued a philophone to D by intimidation that “I would do harm if I would not mislead philophones.” As such, the Defendant’s crime of this case constitutes coercion, and thus, is dismissed from liability.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (the first instance judgment: imprisonment of one year, additional collection of 150,000 won, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment of six months and additional collection of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, each of the first and second judgments of the court below, which the defendant appealed, became concurrent in the trial, led to the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act against the defendant.

In such cases, Article 38 of the Criminal Code should be ruled simultaneously and sentenced to one punishment, so the judgment of the first and second court can no longer be maintained.

On the other hand, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. The act of coercion as referred to in Article 12 of the Criminal Act regarding the defendant's assertion refers to an act committed by force of another person, such as impergible violence, intimidation, etc. In this context, impergible violence means a case where a physical act cannot be absolutely performed in a psychological sense, or where a pressure is strong in ethical sense, and intimidation means a case where a threat means a threat to prevent harm to the life or body of himself/herself or his/her relatives, without any other method, and coercion means to force a specific act by preventing free decision-making of the forced person from being made.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5124 delivered on December 10, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 83Do2276 delivered on December 13, 1983, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the aforementioned legal principles shall be applied.